Talk:Appropriation (art)

To begin

To begin a discussion of "Appropriation (art)," let me first suggest that we remove speculative information regarding Marcel Duchamp's appropriated urinal. Someone has written that "recent research has revealed the apparent urinal as non-standard, and even as non-functional: Duchamp allegedly custom-designed it along with his other supposed readymades." This is pure conjecture without a citation or source and should be removed from the article.

Mcameronboyd 03:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have some problems with this article stretching the use of this word "appropriation" a bit. i am not an expert or scholar, (which is why i came to the talk page rather than editing the article), but i can see myself that there are almost no citations in the History section. Frankly i do not believe the author(s) represent authorities when they say that 'some would say leonardo da vinci appropriated biology or trees etc.'. i do not believe that anyone with authority would refer to observational or representational drawing (such as leonardo's) in general as "appropriation". it is my understanding that appropriation in art specifically refers to the recycling of other people's visual compositions in new art works. at any rate citations would make this more convincing.

• I have taken a few art classes in college and one thing I remember is Marcel Duchamp's Mona Lisa (L.H.O.O.Q.) is considered "Dada" above all else. It would be fitting to move the Duchamp piece to that section.

As a side-note, the term L.H.O.O.Q. when said in French, makes the viewer/reader contribe to the debasement of art, something the Dada artist wanted. In French, the term L.H.O.O.Q when said aloud (like Lo-oak) means "hot ass." (KingYaba 05:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

I'm going to remove Majid Farahani from the list of "Appropriation Artists", mostly because he couldn't be bothered to keep things alphabetical. I also recommend the image of his work be replaced on the page with that of an established artist. He's not had any exhibitions, gallery shows, etc. [1] Oh yes, I'm also going to turn "Appropriation Artists" into "Artists using Appropriation" Pedter (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Rabbit Jeff Koons.jpg

The image Image:Rabbit Jeff Koons.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

---

2/17/09

---

This posting is incorrect on many levels. The Oxford English Dictionary Online defines "appropriation" in relation to art as "The practice or technique of reworking the images or styles contained in earlier works of art, esp. (in later use) in order to provoke critical re-evaluation of well-known pieces by presenting them in new contexts, or to challenge notions of individual creativity or authenticity in art." Second Edition 1989, (Draft Addition 2001). OED site visited 2/17/09

Where are the citations and sources of this posting? Most of it is wrong--just out and out wrong. Arthistorian16 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)arthistorian16

So -- rewrite it. Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Update - Appropriation art and copyrights

There have been many new cases lately of issues with artists appropriating imagery and running into trouble with copyright. I am going to update the 'Appropriation art and copyrights' section. Wgomoll (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This link may be useful, offering court cases related to appropriation art:Laws, cases, and other resources — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewOram (talk • contribs) 21:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Update - Appropriation art and history

The history entry needs to be rewritten and backed by references. I will tackle the paragraph devoted to Marcel Duchamp's readymades. I will include complete dates related to the development of the readymade, expand on the significance of Fountain and include references. Undene (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the stuff added about Duchamp is really good and fits well in the section. My only suggestion is maybe someone should break up the history into sub categories so its a little easier on the eye. Aebcoreno (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

How should the subsections be titled? By year or predominant artist? Undene (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Expansive definition

I don't understand. The extremely expansive definition of the term, appropriation, contained in this article is not supported either by common usage or by any historical or critical texts with which I am familiar. I'm sure few would trace its history back further than Duchamp, and to suggest a connection with the polymath activities of Leonardo is only confusing the issue. The article needs to be thoroughly re-researched and rewritten. Orapronobis (talk) 19:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree. It's a project-and-a-half!! The definition is so broad here it could encompass all and every kind of art. There's definitely a lot wrong. Sionk (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Clean-up and rewrite?

This article isn't moving forward very fast. Someone removed the "essay-like" tag in 2012, though I think it still applies. I've added the "confusing" template, because the article still meanders meaninglessly across a broad range of topics. I'd make the following points:

1. Definition - judging by the dictionary definition, 'appropriation' in art means the reuse of objects or images with little if any transformation. Therefore that doesn't include all installation artists, or anybody that creates new things inspired by someone else's work.
2. The article, judging by its title, is about appropriation in art. That implies it isn't about appropriation in the wider arts i.e. not film-making, writing etc.
3. Large parts/statements/claims are unsourced. It has the whiff of original research in places.
4. Following on from the above, very few copyright legal cases will involve 'appropriation'. I've already removed the Shephard Fairey case, where he created a new work based on someone else's photo.
5. The looong list of artists is meaningless at the moment. Unless they are clearly known for using objects or images directly in their art with little transformation, they need to be removed.
6. Give me 10 minutes, I'll probably think of something else.

Sionk (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I came to this from working on relevant legal cases, in particular, Cariou v. Prince. Sionk, I'm curious why you say that very few copyright legal cases involve appropriation. Admittedly, there's not a lot of published law directly dealing with appropriation art; but there's definitely some, and it's notable (although not always covered here in WP yet). For example, the Shephard Fairey case was widely cited and discussed as an example of appropriation art, and the potential copyright problems therefrom. While it won't ultimately be impactful in terms of the law, it is definitely a notable case simply in terms of the massive media that surrounded this case. The Koons cases are notable legally, and there are a number of other appropriation art cases that would also be notable that would come out of both copyright and trademark contexts. Could you further explain your reasoning on this points? --Lquilter (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• More generally, I completely agree that the article is a bit of a mess. Some of the problem seems to stem from the very broad concept suggested by the title -- "appropriation (art)". Based on the content of this article, I'd title it something more like "appropriation in the arts", actually. And the "appropriation art" movement -- which is what I had hoped this article would be about -- gets a little lost in this article covering the much larger and more general topic. --Lquilter (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)